British Indian Ocean Territory

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the reported multi-billion pound cost of the UK-Mauritius deal; notes the risk the deal presents to the UK’s strategic interests; further notes that it was a policy choice, not a legal necessity, and the concerns held by Chagossians over the Government’s failure to engage comprehensively with them; and calls on the Government to—

(1) lay before this House a chronology of the negotiations between the UK Government and the Government of Mauritius, since 4 July 2024;

(2) confirm whether the account of Prime Minister Ramgoolam given to the Mauritius National Assembly on 4 February 2025 is correct that (a) there has been a change in the sovereignty arrangements over Diego Garcia from those previously agreed, (b) changes have been made to the terms of the lease on Diego Garcia, and (c) changes have been made to the costs of the deal since it was first agreed and announced in the UK-Mauritius joint statement on 3 October 2024;

(3) confirm from which departmental budgets the costs of this deal will come and what they will be, including whether any of the proposed increase in defence spending, as announced by the Prime Minister on 25 February, will be used to pay for this;

(4) explain what involvement the Attorney General has had with this deal;

(5) set out the negotiating objectives established by the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for BIOT negotiations and the reasons the Government sought to accelerate negotiations and conclude them before the Mauritian elections.

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Labour’s botched, embarrassing, humiliating and secretive deal with Mauritius to surrender the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. In a world that is increasingly dangerous and uncertain, where threats from both state and non-state actors are growing and our national economic and security interests face threats from new technology, it is inconceivable that a Government, whose first concern and priority must be the defence of the realm, would give away one of the most important strategic military assets that we hold, let alone pay a foreign Government for its continued use. It is like handing over your house to someone else, and having to pay for the privilege of continuing to live there.

This socialist Government are committed to the principles of redistributing wealth—Government Members were cheering about that—but redistributing the sovereignty of key strategic and military assets in this way is not just socialism but recklessness. It is incompetent and, quite frankly, irresponsible. We cannot afford to gamble in any way when it comes to our national security and defence.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I am a little confused—[Interruption.] If the Conservative party wants to take back Tunbridge Wells at the next election, its Members would do well to listen. Will the shadow Foreign Secretary clarify why she is criticising a deal for which the negotiations were started by the Conservative party?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I cannot speak to the hon. Member’s confusion, but let us be clear that it is not the Conservative party that is putting forward a surrender deal. Let me be crystal clear: we are not surrendering our territory or sovereignty in any way whatsoever.

While the Labour Government, inspired by their dogmatic commitment to misguided—

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

Of course I give way.

[Mr Mitchell]

Let me help the confused Liberal Democrat Member. I was in the Foreign Office during the whole of the Tory negotiations. I witnessed exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and the noble Lord Cameron did in those negotiations. I can tell my right hon. Friend, the House and the Liberal Democrats that the deal that has been done by the Labour party is one that Tory Ministers would never have countenanced.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is fast-forwarding to some of my wider remarks, but he is absolutely right. I thank him for his time in the Foreign Office. It was under Lord Cameron when all this was stopped. It was an advisory opinion. In 2019, it was the Conservative Government and Conservative Foreign Office Ministers who made that point and stopped all this nonsense from going on in the first place.

Conservative Members stand in support of the national interest. I pay tribute to my colleagues in previous Conservative Governments for resisting the efforts of some countries, including China and Argentina, who voted at the UN General Assembly in May 2019 to demand that the UK withdraw from its administration of the Chagos archipelago within six months. The former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron deserves credit for resisting the claims made by Mauritius and for ensuring that our sovereignty was not surrendered while he was Foreign Secretary.

How have we got here? As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the sheer volume of urgent question applications that you and Mr Speaker have presided over on the issue, the Government have acted in a secretive manner, providing little information on the deal agreed and how it was reached. Getting facts and information out of the Government has been like extracting water from a stone, but after asking many questions we have managed to secure some information.

What do we know? [Interruption.] I can tell Government Front Benchers who are chuntering away—perhaps they would like to listen to some of the information—that less than three weeks after taking office, on 23 July, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary prioritised this issue by meeting the then Prime Minister of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth. We do not know what was discussed at that meeting, but on 6 September the Foreign Secretary announced that Jonathan Powell would be the special envoy. On 3 October—less than three months after coming into office and when the House was not sitting—the Foreign Secretary confirmed that he had waved the white flag of surrender. He confirmed that the Labour Government would hand over the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory, pay a lease for the use of the base at Diego Garcia—the amount has been kept secret—and pay towards an economic development partnership with Mauritius and a Chagossian trust fund.

Not only was the deal put together in haste and in secret, but serious concerns were raised about the timing of the agreement. The then Mauritian Prime Minister called a general election the following day—4 October 2024—and, of course, the presidential election of our ally and partner in Diego Garcia, the United States of America, was held the following month. The result of both those elections led to changes in Administrations; I will touch on that shortly. The decision over the future of this key strategic military and security asset has been taken in advance of the strategic defence review being completed, the spending review and the China audit. How can the Government justify giving away the Chagos islands and losing control of this asset before they have thoroughly assessed the threats we face and our long-term defence and security needs?

Unlike lawyer-led Labour—

[Hon. Members]

Not qualified lawyers.

[Priti Patel]

If I may caveat my remarks, unlike those unqualified, pretend lawyers—not even actual lawyers—Conservative Members believe that decisions over the future of key strategic military assets cannot be taken on advisory opinions issued and by motions agreed in international organisations, especially when such votes have been cast against us by nations, and indeed judges, who may pose a threat to us and have their own interests.

Britain is a global power, and we face global threats. The base of Diego Garcia is one of the most important strategic and military assets in the Indo-Pacific for us and for our US partners. If our sovereignty over the base and the Chagos islands is lost, diluted or compromised, we are weaker, and our rivals, competitors and enemies grow stronger.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who are led by lawyers—there is nothing wrong with that—should at least get the law right? If there is legal jeopardy here, does she agree that we should understand what that jeopardy is? She knows that the International Court of Justice cannot make a binding ruling against the UK on this matter because Mauritius is a member of the Commonwealth and we have not accepted its jurisdiction in those circumstances. If there is legal jeopardy that makes a deal necessary, does she agree that this is a good moment for the Minister to explain to us precisely what that legal jeopardy is?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. and learned Friend absolutely speaks sense on this issue and that is exactly why I enjoyed working with him so much on some of the challenges we faced in government. That is exactly the point.

Turning to the substance, or proposed substance, in the proposed treaty, the Labour Government failed to provide any transparency over plans, but we are fortunate that the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, Navin Ramgoolam, and his Government have been much more open and candid about the negotiations, sharing the details of the humiliating concessions that Labour Ministers have made in this epic failure of diplomacy.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I just wanted to prompt my right hon. Friend to pursue one other matter, which is quite important. I was looking at the list of the judges who sat on the ICJ panel. It is quite interesting. Apart from there being a Russian who was fully supportive of the invasion of Ukraine, it turns out that Vice-President Xue, who wrote the whole case, also voted to support the Russian invasion of Ukraine and was heavily involved in the Chinese Government previously. To what degree does that represent balanced and informed judgment—here internationally—as we would have in the UK?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is spot on and makes a point that I have made. There are people—judges in particular—who clearly are undermining our integrity, sovereignty and the decision making in our own Government. They are pursuing their own interests and that is why we have to call out this deal.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On that point, did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Daily Telegraph on 26 February that one of the other judges who took part in that judgment, Patrick Robinson, believes that the United Kingdom should be repaying at least £18 trillion in reparations for slavery in the past?

[Priti Patel]

I did read that report. I have to say that that is exactly why we questioned the deal. It is the wrong approach, it really is. For all the lawyers sitting on the Labour Benches and in the Government—well, supposed lawyers—why are they not effectively looking at the integrity of the proposed deal and providing the scrutiny that is needed?

We need Ministers to confirm when they decided that the proposed deal should be shared with the new American Administration, because there are so many questions as to how we got into this position. For weeks, Ministers refused to say—here at the Dispatch Box—that they would wait until President Trump took office, including failing to answer questions directly on 14 January. While they were refusing to say anything, the Mauritius Government suggested that Ministers here were not just eager but desperate to complete the deal by 20 January. But on 15 January, through a Downing Street briefing—not a statement to this House, Madam Deputy Speaker—we learnt that the Government would now wait to brief the new President and that the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his Assembly that it was a unilateral decision of the United Kingdom to postpone matters. When the Minister responds to the debate, will she finally confirm on which date the Government policy towards consulting the new US Administration and delaying the deal was agreed?

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The attitude of the Government of the United States is absolutely central. There has been a profound change in the stance taken by the Government of the United States, with the election of the new President. Instead of embracing that and seeing it as an opportunity, the Labour party seems determined to railroad through a deal that does not, it appears, command the support of the Government of the United States. It is a preposterous position to be in.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is shameful, because these are exactly the questions that we on the Opposition Benches were putting forward to the Government, and they were simply refusing to be transparent and answer any questions whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that the credibility and integrity of the Government is at stake. If they cannot come clean on these simple questions, what else are they hiding?

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

This was compounded even further only yesterday, when the statement was handed to the Leader of the Opposition with redacted information. That is absolutely shameful. The duty of His Majesty’s Opposition is to hold the Government to account. How can they do that if they do not get the information needed to make the best decisions for the country?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that the Government need to reflect on their own conduct. The British public are about to have to fork out huge amounts of money for a deal that has had no scrutiny or public airing whatsoever. The lack of transparency is one thing, but when we see this being repeated across every Government Department and even in a Prime Minister’s statement, it is simply unacceptable. There is something deeply shameful about the conduct and the lack of transparency of this Government.

Secondly, on the negotiations, the Mauritius Prime Minister has publicly given a chronology of the counterproposals his Government have put forward to change the agreement reached and announced by his predecessor and the UK Prime Minister. He has stated to his National Assembly that, upon taking office in November, he had—guess what?—reviewed the deal. This is exactly the same deal that the Foreign Secretary has described as “a very good deal”, and one he was “confident” that the Mauritians were still really sure about, yet the Mauritian Prime Minister concluded that the deal

“was so bad that we said, no way!”

There is video footage of that as well. It is available online for everyone to see. He claimed that he subsequently submitted a counterproposal to the UK and that the UK Government responded on 16 December.

Then, on 31 December, Mauritius submitted its response and requested a meeting in January, which was quickly arranged and held. That meeting took place. The Mauritius Cabinet then met on 15 January and, soon after, its delegation, led by its Attorney General, Gavin Glover, came to London to meet the Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer. So, according to the Mauritians, a series of counterproposals and responses were exchanged, but when we have asked the Government about whether counterproposals were received and what they were, including at questions yesterday, Ministers have continually refused to say.

I find it astonishing that this House has had to rely on Hansard from the Mauritius National Assembly. It is very good; I recommend that colleagues read it. We have had to rely on that Hansard to find out what UK Government Ministers are up to. That is why our motion demands the publication of a chronology so that we can know what has happened. When we hear from the Minister, perhaps she can confirm whether this account from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct.

The Minister should also explain to the House the role that the Attorney General has been playing in these negotiations, because written answers have stated that his meeting with the Mauritius delegation last month was a “courtesy meeting”. But the Prime Minister of Mauritius has stated that when his Attorney General met his British counterpart, Lord Hermer, and the Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign Office, they both assured him of the commitment of the UK Government to signing the agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Giving that assurance seems to demonstrate that the Attorney General was actively playing a part in the negotiations, rather than attending a “courtesy meeting”, and in view of that previous interest in the British Indian Ocean Territory, questions will rightly be raised about his involvement. So can the Minister confirm whether the Attorney General has recused himself from these matters?

Thirdly, we know from the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius that concessions have been made over sovereignty, even though Ministers here have refused to confirm or admit it. The joint statement of 3 October said:

“For an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century.”

When we asked yesterday whether a change had been made, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said:

“The fundamentals of the deal remain the same”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.]

But if the fundamentals of the deal remain the same, why has the Mauritius Prime Minister said that

“there have been changes. The British agreed. We insisted that the sovereignty issue is the crucial and the most important issue…We insisted that it be clear that we have complete sovereignty on the Chagos, including Diego Garcia. The British agreed to that and this has been changed.”

And why is it that, in a letter sent to me this week by the Foreign Secretary, he does not use the word “sovereignty” in relation to the lease, only stating:

“The UK would retain all the rights and authorities we need to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base.”

The difference in the language between the joint statement from October and this letter to me matters. The Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister might not realise it, but removing sovereignty is a fundamental change, and it matters for the defence and security of our country.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s point is not merely semantic, because in international law—which I know holds great sway on the Labour Benches—those who interpret our entitlements will look closely at whether we have sovereign power or only power by means of an agreement that can be torn up by Mauritius.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Sovereignty matters, and the Minister could not admit it to the House yesterday in the Chamber, but perhaps when a Minister sums up today they can confirm that change in position. We need to know whether we have lost sovereignty and lost control.

Fourthly, it is clear there has been a change in the lease agreement—this letter makes that crystal clear. When the Foreign Secretary made his statement to the House on 7 October 2024, he stated that the lease

“is initially for 99 years, but the UK has the right to extend that.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 46.]

The impression given was that this could be unilaterally extended, as he would not say at the time that both parties needed to agree.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The reality is that the present Prime Minister of Mauritius has publicly stated—by the way, he also mentioned that the cost would be up to £18 billion—“Interestingly, we would have happily looked at joint sovereignty where it was clear, but the British Government did not want it.”

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I am afraid it shows the lack of commitment to even understanding the sovereignty of the territory.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is already a campaign, led by local celebrities in Mauritius, to ensure that once sovereignty is restored to Mauritius, the treaty is reneged on and an attempt is made to close the airport?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we on the Opposition side of the House will be scrutinising the Government even further on this. We will be holding them to account. They simply do not value sovereignty and they are about to give away control, and that is simply unacceptable.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

This issue of sovereignty is crucial. First, it is not about restoring sovereignty to Mauritius; Mauritius never had sovereignty in the first place. Moreover, the moment at which the United Kingdom Government concede the point of sovereignty, all else is lost in the negotiation; we will have not a leg to stand on. So clarity on this point is essential.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Government seem to have a complete disregard for this. He is absolutely right that Mauritius never had sovereignty in the first instance, and now look at this terrible mess. This is a complete surrender and an epic failure of diplomacy.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will give way shortly.

We also know from the Mauritius Prime Minister that the lease extension provisions have—guess what—been changed and diluted. He told his National Assembly, talking to their Leader of the Opposition, that

“the agreement was for an agreement of 99 years, and then, unilaterally, the British would decide on an extension of that agreement for 40 years. We had no say in it. We disagreed completely! It cannot be that an agreement is signed for 99 years, and then the British on their own would decide that they will renew the agreement and we have no say in it.”

He went on to say that he has got this changed:

“The extension has to be agreed with both parties. It cannot be unilateral from the British. And I am glad to inform the Leader of the Opposition that the British have agreed to that also.”

The Foreign Secretary, in his letter to me, remarked that the 99-year lease

“can be extended if both sides agree. We will have the right of first refusal, meaning it can’t be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing.”

That is, frankly, an astonishing response to receive, and an astonishing concession for the Labour Government to make. This deal was bad enough at the outset, but now we know that, despite the Minister’s claim that the

“fundamentals of the deal remain the same”,—[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.]

we have gone from the UK being able unilaterally to extend the lease by 40 years to now being able to extend it only with the agreement of Mauritius, and there is a “right of first refusal” caveat in that lease too.

The House should be shocked by this, and we need answers. I urge the Minister to answer these questions when she responds. What happens at the end of the 99-year period if both parties cannot agree? What happens if we want to extend and Mauritius does not? What will happen to the base and the equipment under those circumstances? What if, at the end of 99 years, the price that Mauritius asks for is too high? If we cannot unilaterally extend the lease, then—guess what—we have lost control. The Labour Government may not realise this, but Mauritius knows it very well. The British taxpayer knows this extremely well, and of course our enemies know it—they are sitting back and watching, rubbing their hands with glee, because on all the key negotiation points, Labour has backed down and Britain is losing control.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about how the Government are giving this away, but we only know that because of what Mauritius is saying to the public. We in this House have been constantly left in the dark—so much so that even when I was recently on “Politics Live” with the Leader of the House, she refused point blank and totally lost the plot when I started to question her about what this Government are doing. Is transparency not absolutely at the core of what we need to hear from the Government?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already made the point—Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have heard many of us say it—that there is a failure to be transparent. The fact that I have quoted so much from the Mauritius National Assembly’s Hansard speaks volumes about the conduct of this Government. It has been a great read, and the video clips are absolutely astonishing, but I certainly think that the Government should learn some lessons on high standards and raising the bar.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

What my right hon. Friend describes is truly shocking. This Labour Government are going to give away British sovereign territory, and they are going to charge the poor elderly pensioners and our businesspeople to do so. They are going to fundamentally fail in their first duty to keep Britain safe by making our country less safe. What on earth is motivating them to do this dreadful thing?

[Priti Patel]

There is plenty of speculation as to why the Government wish to go down this course, and it is not in our national interest. I will say it: Labour does not represent the national interest when it comes to sovereignty and fighting for the real freedoms that the British people believe in.

I have spoken already about the terms of the lease. The Labour Government have also made concessions on the cost—the price that British taxpayers will be forced to pay because of this shambolic, economically illiterate Government. For weeks we have been asking about the cost and any changes made from the position in October, and for weeks Ministers have failed to give answers, but the Prime Minister of Mauritius has confirmed that concessions have indeed been made. He told his National Assembly that

“we also wanted to do front loading; some of the money had to be front loaded,

—he said that with a lot of enthusiasm—

“and that also is being agreed to”.

It was only after I wrote to the Foreign Secretary to highlight this that he finally accepted that this has happened and that changes have been made. He wrote in his letter to me:

“There have been some changes to the financial arrangements to enable a limited element of frontloading, but the overall net present value of the treaty payments (which accounts for the impact of indexation) has not changed since”.

That change was not announced to the House, and nor did the Minister, or any Minister, mention that in this Chamber or when I raised it in the House yesterday.

We know that the costs will be front-loaded, but we still do not know what they will actually be. The Foreign Secretary told me in his letter that the £18 billion figure reported

“is false and significantly exceeds the quantum.”

So what is the figure? Is it £9 billion, £12 billion, £15 billion? Is it higher or lower? The Minister need only nod to give us clarity on that, but perhaps she does not even know the cost.

[Dr Evans]

The Defence Secretary was asked this morning on LBC where the funding was coming from. He said:

“There will be no payments unless and until the deal is struck.”

That does not answer the question. Who would go into a deal without knowing how they will pay for it? Which budget is the funding coming from—the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budget or the Defence budget? Is it included in the new defence spending or not? Those are questions that the Prime Minister refused to answer today. Does my right hon. Friend have any thoughts on how we can get those answers now?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for that essential question, which remains unanswered. At the end of the day, the Government must be clear about which budget that money is coming from, because we need to know. We do not even know the sums, but this is taxpayer’s money. How can any Government justify those extraordinary sums?

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

What is agreed universally is that the cost is £9 billion—the Government do not question that at all. Whether there is front-loading or not, we do not yet know, but let us assume that the cost is £90 million a year for 99 years. A lot of people in the media and in politics seem to have a problem with basic arithmetic and compounding: £90 million a year, index-linked at 3%, is £52 billion—a completely eye-watering sum. I am very surprised that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are not using that number, or perhaps they are just so embarrassed about having begun the negotiations themselves—I do not know.

[Priti Patel]

The bottom line in all this is that there is no transparency at all from the Government. We will absolutely press and hold them to account on that.

I come back to the point we have just heard from the Opposition Benches, which is that no Minister—not even the Defence Secretary today—has told us where that money is coming from. Perhaps this Minister does not know the cost, or maybe she needs permission from the Attorney General, or from Rachel from accounts, even to comment on the numbers, but the House must know. Labour has sought to hide behind the real reason for what is going on. It is constantly using the fig leaf of national security to avoid telling British taxpayers how much the deal will cost. That is simply not acceptable.

If the Government will not tell us the numbers, they should at least tell us where the budget has come from. In a written parliamentary answer of 22 November, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to me that he had engaged in discussions and reached an agreement with Cabinet colleagues on the financial elements of the proposed lease of the military base on Diego Garcia, as part of the UK-Mauritius agreement announced on 3 October. Will the Minister confirm—she can intervene now if she would like to—whether that funding will come from the defence budget? If it does, will it count towards the new 2.5% target announced by the Prime Minister yesterday? It would be a stain on the Government if they reached that target as a result of wasting money—hard-pressed taxpayers’ money—on that unnecessary lease. The British public deserve accountability and transparency.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will give way one more time.

[Dr Murrison]

She is being very generous in giving way. Does she agree that the Government stand accused of perhaps being guilty of some creative accounting? If they are transferring money from the international development budget to defence, and then transferring the self-same money from defence to Mauritius, allowing Ministers to benefit from the fiction of an uplift in the defence budget, the public are entitled to smell a rat.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is completely duplicitous. That is no way for any Government to conduct themselves, particularly in relation to such a matter.

To conclude, in negotiating this deal and agreeing to surrender—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did say that I would give way to my hon. Friend.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if she was coming to this point in her final words, but is it not extraordinary that we should be doing something that so many people in Washington profoundly object to, when the Prime Minister is about to have an extremely delicate discussion with the President of the United States about whether he will reaffirm his guarantees for the security and peace of our whole continent, and indeed of our country? Is this not a kind gift that the Government should take to Washington and say, “We will drop this if you have the slightest objection”?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a critical time for our two countries when it comes to both our place and our standing in the world. All we have seen from this Government is an epic failure in diplomacy, and concession after concession. The Labour Government have shown themselves to be weak. Not only have they undermined our strategic defence interests and our very close relationship with our dear ally, but they are putting our territories at risk and wasting taxpayers’ money. We need a Government who stand tall in the world and who fly the Union flag with pride rather than the white flag of surrender.

The deal is an epic failure in diplomacy and it is causing our standing in the world to fall. The House must vote for our motion to defend our national interests and Britain’s standing in the world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I must inform the House there will have to be an immediate five-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions, which obviously excludes those from the Front Benches.